Page 1

1

Fish Community and Habitat Assessment of Jordan Creek

Sabine Miller, Yong Cao, and Gregory King

Prairie Research Institute

Illinois Natural History Survey—UIUC—Contractors

1816 South Oak Street

Champaign, IL 61820

2

Introduction

Stream ecosystems support a high level of biodiversity by providing various habitats for fish,

macroinvertebrates, and other aquatic organisms. Fish and invertebrate species that are sensitive

to changes in water quality and habitat alteration can act as bioindicators for the health of an

ecosystem. Studying aquatic populations is important because they react to the direct and indirect

effects of stressors experienced by the entire stream ecosystem (Faush, 1990). Additionally,

understanding how fish populations change in conjunction with ecosystem changes can provide

valuable insight for management decisions (Herman, 2015). Long-term monitoring of stream

systems provides data on the physical and biological variation over time. These data can reveal

trends in temporal and spatial variability which might not be apparent with short-term data

collection (Coulihan, 2018). These long-term trends can help researchers understand the drivers

of system dynamics and direct future research and management.

Extended monitoring programs have been established for multiple Illinois rivers by the

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) and Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

Basin Surveys. However, few projects have focused on the long-term monitoring of Illinois

streams. Jordan Creek is valuable because it has been extensively studied since the 1950s and has

a well-developed database of historical fish and invertebrate populations. In 1950, Weldon

Larimore was the first to compile a list of fish species and habitat conditions in Jordan Creek in

his 1952 paper “An inventory of the fishes of Jordan Creek.” Jordan Creek monitoring was

continued by Ike Schlosser in 1978 when he conducted a fish survey of Jordan Creek using the

same electrofishing techniques as Dr. Larimore.

To continue this data collection, we designed a long-term observational monitoring

protocol for Jordan Creek. This monitoring program was initiated in Summer 2020 and sampling

will be continued every other year into the foreseeable future. Our protocol is based on the fish-

collection methods of Larimore et al.’s 1952 paper and the habitat assessment and

macroinvertebrate collection protocols used by the INHS. The information gathered from this

monitoring program will be used to identify changes in fish populations over the past 70 years

and provide information on the current macroinvertebrate communities and stream habitats. The

utility of these identified trends extends beyond Jordan Creek and can provide insight for current

and future research projects looking at fish populations in nearby rivers and surrounding

watersheds. The objective of this report is to compare the fish community composition collected

during Summer 2020 to those collected by Larimore et al. in 1950 and Schlosser et al. in 1978.

Methods

Study Site

Jordan Creek is a second-order stream that spans 17 miles and drains a 10.6 square mile area

until flowing into the Salt Fork River (Figure 1). As part of the Vermillion watershed, it is a good

representation of warm water creeks in the Central Illinois area (Larimore, 1961). From its

confluence with the Salt Fork, the creek runs through a predominantly forested area, eventually

becoming surrounded by well-established agricultural fields with a narrow riparian zone.

3

The area of interest is a four-mile stretch of Jordan Creek sourced at the confluence of the

Salt Fork and continuing upstream. In 1950, Larimore collected data from eight sites within this

reach. By assessing the characteristics of these sites, we were able to categorize them into two

distinct habitat types: the downstream forested area and the upstream agricultural area (Table 1).

We chose four study sites for our 2020 sampling based on their relation to the habitat

characteristics and location of Larimore’s sites, as well as the willingness of landowner

cooperation and ease of stream access (Figure 1). Sites 1-3 corresponds to Larimore’s

downstream forested area and site 4 corresponds to the upstream agricultural area. (Figure 2).

Figure 1: Locations of the 2020 Jordan Creek study sites.

1

3

4

2

4

Figure 2: Locations of the 2020 study sites on Larimore’s 1950 study site map.

Table 1: Summary of the habitat characteristics of Larimore et al.’s 1950 study divisions.

Characteristics

Downstream Forested Area Upstream Agricultural Area

1950 Divisions

1-4

5-8

Percent of water shaded (%) 75-85

0-15

Dominant bottom materials

Bedrock, gravel, sand

Sand, gravel, silt

Use of surrounding land

Timber, permanent pasture

Soybeans, permanent pasture

Habitat Assessment

Habitat assessment and macroinvertebrate sampling took place during the last week of July and

the first week of August 2020. This sampling time coincided with the peak greenness of the area.

Peak greenness is defined by the NEON Riparian Habitat Assessment protocol as “the site-

specific period of phenology marking the start of the plant growing season, from spring “green-

up” to end of the season plant senescence.” Future assessments should continue to take place

during peak greenness for an accurate representation of canopy coverage and riparian vegetation

structure.

Sites were assessed for wetted width, depth, substrate composition, canopy cover,

riparian vegetation composition, and bank angle. Each study site was 100 m in length, and

habitat data were collected at nine cross-sectional transects located 10 m apart beginning 10 m

from the downstream boundary. Data was not collected at the upper and lower site boundaries.

At each transect, wetted width was recorded, then divided by 10 to determine the sampling

5

interval for the depth and substrate sampling points along the stream cross-section. At each depth

sampling point, depth was measured with a meter stick and the substrate directly underneath was

categorized based on the NEON pebble count protocol. This was repeated for a total of 10

sampling points. Substrate classes were defined as silt (0.02-0.10 mm), sand (0.10-2 mm), pebble

(2-65 mm), cobble (65-250 mm), bedrock, and hardpan. Canopy cover was approximated at each

transect by the percent of stream shaded along the cross-section. The extent of canopy coverage

was categorized as none, low, intermediate, high, and almost total coverage. Riparian vegetation

was measured on each bank in a 10 m x 10 m section centered at the transect bank location and

extending towards the riparian zone. Vegetation was classified as trees, woody/shrub, and

herbaceous plants, and the abundance was categorized based on the percent of transect coverage.

Bank angles were broken down into primary and secondary angles and visually assessed in broad

categories.

Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Macroinvertebrates were collected following the INHS Macroinvertebrate-Multihabitat

Sampling Protocol (INHS, 2018). A D-frame net and jab approach was used to collect 20

samples starting at the downstream boundary and continuing upstream in 5 m increments.

Samples were preserved in 99% ethanol for a final concentration of at least 50% ethanol.

Fish Sampling

Sampling was done with a four-person crew at the same 100 m sites used for habitat and

macroinvertebrate sampling. Before sampling began, block nets were placed across the upstream

and downstream boundaries and secured to the stream bed to ensure no fish entered or exited the

site during sampling. Fish were sampled using an AC electric seine beginning at the downstream

boundary. From the downstream boundary, the seine was pulled upstream with the probes

focused along the bank. The fish were collected by large nets and placed into coolers fitted with

aerators for identification.

Conductivity, dissolved oxygen, water temperature, and velocity were recorded at each

site before sampling. Electrofishing occurred during the last week of July through the last week

in September. Fish sampling was spread out temporally due to low rainfall and complications

from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data Analysis

In 1950, Larimore et al. sampled continuously upstream for 4.02 miles from the confluence with

the Salt Fork, while four 100 m sites were sampled in 2020. To compare the 2020 data to the

1950 data, one of Larimore et al.’s eight divisions was compared to one 2020 site using rarified

species richness curves. To determine which divisions were representative of the 2020 sites,

historical maps identifying Larimore’s locations were compared to Google Earth images to

6

identify the best match in geographic location and similarities in habitat type (Table 2). To

account for the differences in sampling effort between the 2020 and 1950 survey, the 1950 data

were rarefied to produce a species richness which assumed the total fish caught were the same as

the 2020 collection (Table 7).

Schlosser et al. performed a fish survey of Jordan Creek in 1978, starting from the

confluence with the Salt Fork and moving upstream. Four distinct regions were identified and

broken down into a total of 14 study stations 100 m in length. We compared the physical

locations of the 1978 stations to our 2020 sites using Google Earth to determine the

corresponding study sites. Schlosser used an electric seine to sample region 4 and a minnow drag

seine to sample region 3. Further experimentation showed that there was no significant

difference between the number of fish caught using a drag seine versus an electric seine

(Schlosser, 1982).

Larimore’s data included in this report includes only the fish caught in the initial census,

not the entire number of individuals collected during the repeated census in the fall. It should

also be noted that Larimore does not provide data for all the fish that were caught. He included

data on the 10 most abundant minnow species but did not identify or quantify the other minnow

species which were collected.

We tested to see if species tolerance to disturbance explained the variation in species

relative abundance changes using a t-test assuming unequal variances. Species tolerance data

was taken from the I-Fish database and tolerances were based on the Biological Stream

Characterization Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) intolerance to silt and large river IBI tolerance.

Table 2: The 1950 divisions and 1978 stations corresponding to the 2020 study sites.

2020 Site

1950 Division

1978 Station

1

1

4E

2

3

4C

3

4

4B

4

8

3A

Results and Discussion

2020 sites 1-3 were surrounded by a thick band of forested areas whose canopy has high to

almost total coverage of the water (Table 3). These sites had similar riparian vegetation

compositions with intermediate levels of trees, woody shrubs, and herbaceous plants (Table 4).

At site 2, approximately 30 m of the left bank was a sheer bluff, and therefore, no riparian

vegetation was recorded for those transects. Sites 1-3 had a gradual to moderate shoreline

followed by a steep secondary bank angle. At each of these sites, at least one undercut bank was

present (Table 5). The stream beds of these sites were predominantly pebble, cobble, and

bedrock. Site 2 was uniquely dominated by bedrock as it made up 46% of the sampled substrate.

7

Sites 1 and 3 were dominated by pebble and cobble. The mean wetted width of sites 1-3 ranged

from 7.8-8.5 m with the maximum widths similar throughout all of the sites (Table 6). There

were multiple pools and riffles in each site with areas of slow and moderate flow velocities.

2020 site 4 was surrounded by agricultural corn fields and had low to no canopy coverage

(Table 3). The site ran underneath a bridge for approximately 10 m, but this bridge coverage was

not considered in canopy cover or riparian vegetation assessments. The riparian vegetation was

dominated by herbaceous plants with very low levels of trees and woody shrubs present (Table

4). There was a moderate shoreline throughout followed by a steep secondary bank, though in

some areas the transition to a secondary bank was not detectable. No undercut banks were found

on the site (Table 5). Site 4 was the only site with silt substrate. Silt was the dominant bed

material making up 44% of the streambed composition, the rest was composed of sand and

pebble. The stream bed was noticeably less stable compared to sites 1-3 and sinking occurred if

pressure was applied to the streambed. The wetted width of site 4 was narrower (5.0 m) and less

variable than sites 1-3, indicating a more uniform stream geometry. The mean depth was the

highest of all sites at 27 cm (Table 6). Unlike sites 1-3, site 4 did not have any discernable pools

or riffles and instead was a straight, deep channel, with a uniform slow flow velocity. This site

has been subjected to dredging of the stream bed in recent years. However, once an area has been

dredged and converted to an agricultural ditch, the continued maintenance of the ditch may not

be notably detrimental to the fish community (Ward-Campbell, 2017).

Table 3: Canopy coverage of 2020 sites. Coverage categorized based on the percent of water

shaded: none (0-10%), low (25%), intermediate (50%), high (75%), and almost total coverage

(90-100%).

Site

Average Canopy Cover

1

High

2

Almost total coverage

3

High

4

Low

Table 4: 2020 site riparian vegetation composition. Vegetation abundance was categorized by

the percent of coverage in the transect as absent (0%), sparse (<20%), intermediate (20-40%),

abundant (>40%).

Site

Trees

Woody

Herbaceous

1

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

2

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

3

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

4

Sparse

Sparse

Abundant

8

Table 5: Average bank angles and undercut banks of the 2020 sites. Bank angles were

categorized as gradual shoreline (0-30⁰), moderate shoreline (30-60⁰), steep bank (60-90⁰),

vertical bank (90⁰), undercut bank (>90⁰).

Site

Average Primary

Bank Angle

Average Secondary

Bank Angle

Undercut Banks

1

Gradual shoreline

Steep bank

2

2

Gradual shoreline

Steep bank

2

3

Moderate shoreline

Steep bank

1

4

Moderate shoreline

Steep bank

0

Table 6: Mean wetted width, mean depth, and substrate composition of 2020 sites.

Parenthetical indicate the minimum and maximum values at that site.

Site

Mean Wetted

Width (m)

Mean Depth

(cm)

Silt

(%)

Sand

(%)

Pebble

(%)

Cobble

(%)

Boulder

(%)

Bedrock

(%)

Hardpan

(%)

1

8.0 (5.2-11.4)

19 (0-73)

0

13

40

32

6

4

5

2

7.8 (5.9-9.8)

9 (0-30)

0

11

25

10

4

50

0

3

8.5 (1.3-11.8)

10 (0-24)

0

10

68

20

2

0

0

4

5.0 (4.0-6.2)

27 (6-63)

44

17

36

3

0

0

0

Across all four sites, we captured 2,679 fish representing 33 species. Site 3 had the highest

richness at 24 species, which was 60% higher than the lowest richness at site 2 which had 15

species. At all sites, the raw data showed lower species richness than Larimore et al. (1952). The

1978 species richness was also lower than the 1950 values. The 1950 species richness was very

similar across all sites, ranging from 27—28 (Table 7). However, after rarefaction using the 2020

sample sizes, the 1950 species richness decreased to 23.6—24.7 (Table 8). The 1978 species

richness remained very consistent at each site with species richness of 18 at three sites and 21 at

the fourth. The 2020 species richness was more varied between the sites compared to the 1950

values, with site 2 experiencing a decrease in species richness from 22.8 in 1950 to 15 in 2020

(Table 7).

The similar species richness found across the four sites in the 1950 sampling effort could

be due to the thoroughness of the sampling. The 1950 study reaches range from approximately

500-850 m in length while the 2020 sampling was confined to 100 m reaches. The significantly

larger sampling areas in 1950 resulted in more microhabitats sampled across all study sites. This

likely increased and evened out the number of species collected in 1950 as some species require

specific habitat characteristics which can be present sporadically along a stream. The notable

decrease in species richness and increase in variability between the 2020 sites suggests that 100

m is not long enough to capture all microhabitats present. Due to this smaller study site, habitats

present in one site potentially were not found in others, leading to the higher species richness

variability.

9

Table 7: Site and entire reach Total Abundance and Species Richness of fish collected in Jordan

Creek in 2020, 1950, and 1978 surveys.

Site

2020

Abundance

2020 Species

Richness

1978

Abundance

1978 Species

Richness

1950

Abundance

1950 Species

Richness

1

553

22

433

21

3463

28

2

480

15

234

18

3239

27

3

818

24

190

18

3124

28

4

828

19

1198

18

7472

28

Reach Total

2,679

33

2,055

25

41,231

35

Table 8: Rarefied Species Richness of fish captured in Jordan Creek. Rarefaction analysis was

performed to standardize catch. For this, the sample size of Larimore’s 1950 data was set to the

abundance of fish captured at the 2020 sites within Larimore’s corresponding divisions.

Site

2020 Rarefaction

Sample Size

1950 Rarified Species Richness

with 2020 Sample Size

1

553

23.6

2

480

22.8

3

818

24.7

4

828

24.1

10

Figure 3: Rarefaction of 1950 species richness compared to 2020 species richness. The solid line

indicates a 1:1 relationship.

Table 9: Total abundance of species caught at the 2020 sites and the 1978 and 1950 surveys.

Sites

Species

1

2

3

4

2020 Total 1978 Total 1950 Total

Bluegill

8

1

6

7

22

3

101

Bluntnose Minnow

64

53

135

94

346

709

7098

Blackstripe Topminnow 0

0

0

39

39

54

0

Central Stoneroller

3

30

1

5

39

65

9830

Creek Chub

10

45

55

1

111

30

2960

Emerald Shiner

0

4

11

0

15

0

0

Fantail Darter

15

8

64

0

87

141

951

Golden Redhorse

0

0

1

0

1

5

1024

Greenside Darter

20

29

19

0

68

22

748

Grass Pickerel

1

0

0

1

2

29

16

Green Sunfish

2

0

0

1

3

0

318

Hornyhead Chub

22

44

87

31

184

340

2071

Johnny Darter

1

2

13

0

16

15

40

Largemouth Bass

0

0

0

3

3

0

41

Longear Sunfish

10

0

10

12

32

51

2015

Western Mosquitofish

2

0

21

60

83

0

0

Northern Hogsucker

3

0

0

0

3

44

2358

Orangethroat Darter

0

0

6

0

6

31

740

Orange Spotted Sunfish 0

0

0

16

16

0

N/A

Rainbow Darter

70

22

92

0

184

117

574

Redfin Shiner

1

0

2

0

3

44

136

Rock Bass

2

0

1

1

4

55

30

Roseyface Shiner

0

0

0

8

8

0

N/A

Sand Shiner

0

0

11

0

11

0

2344

Spotfin Shiner

131

76

124

70

401

1

273

Silverjaw Minnow

0

3

3

3

9

0

5159

Smallmouth Bass

4

2

4

0

10

28

369

Stonecat

35

5

7

0

47

8

45

Striped Shiner

142

152

140

474

908

205

0

Unidentified

1

4

4

0

3

0

0

Warmouth

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

White Sucker

5

0

1

1

7

27

413

Yellow Bullhead

0

0

0

1

1

27

155

11

Black Bullhead

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Blackside Darter

0

0

0

0

0

2

6

Brindled Madtom

0

0

0

0

0

0

18

Common Shiner

0

0

0

0

0

0

826

Creek Chubsucker

0

0

0

0

0

2

22

Quillback

0

0

0

0

0

0

167

Starhead Topminnow

0

0

0

0

0

0

44

Suckermouth Minnow

0

0

0

0

0

0

335

Sampling Total 553

480

818

828

2,679

2,055

41,231

Notably, many species had similar relative abundances over the past 70 years. However, there

was a marked change in several species. The relative abundance of the Central Stoneroller,

Northern Hogsucker, Silverjaw Minnow, Sand Shiner, and Bluntnose Minnow noticeably

decreased from 1950 to 2020. On the other hand, there was an increase in the relative abundance

of Spotfin Shiner and Rainbow Darter.

Table 10: Species relative abundance in 2020, 1978, and 1950 collections.

Species

1950 Relative

Abundance (%)

1978 Relative

Abundance (%)

2020 Relative

Abundance (%)

Bluegill

0.24

0.15

0.82

Bluntnose Minnow

17.22

34.50

12.92

Blackstripe Topminnow

None Collected

2.63

1.46

Central Stoneroller

22.84

3.16

1.46

Creek Chub

7.18

1.46

4.14

Emerald Shiner

None Collected

None Collected

0.56

Fantail Darter

2.31

6.86

3.25

Golden Redhorse

2.48

0.24

0.04

Greenside Darter

1.81

1.07

2.54

Grass Pickerel

0.04

1.41

0.07

Green Sunfish

0.77

None Collected

0.11

Hornyhead Chub

5.02

16.55

6.87

Johnny Darter

0.10

0.73

0.60

Largemouth Bass

0.10

None Collected

0.11

Longear Sunfish

4.89

2.48

1.19

Western Mosquitofish

None Collected

None Collected

3.10

Northern Hogsucker

5.72

2.14

0.11

Orangethroat Darter

1.79

1.51

0.22

Orange Spotted Sunfish

N/A

None Collected

0.60

Rainbow Darter

1.39

5.69

6.87

Redfin Shiner

0.33

2.14

0.11

12

Rock Bass

0.07

2.68

0.15

Roseyface Shiner

N/A

None Collected

0.30

Sand Shiner

5.69

None Collected

0.41

Spotfin Shiner

0.66

0.05

14.97

Silverjaw Minnow

12.51

None Collected

0.34

Smallmouth Bass

0.89

1.36

0.37

Stonecat

None Collected

0.39

1.75

Striped Shiner

None Collected

9.98

33.89

Warmouth

None Collected

None Collected

0.04

White Sucker

1.00

1.31

0.26

Yellow Bullhead

0.38

1.31

0.04

Black Bullhead

0.01

None Collected

None Collected

Blackside Darter

0.01

0.10

None Collected

Brindled Madtom

0.04

None Collected

None Collected

Common Shiner

2.00

None Collected

None Collected

Creek Chubsucker

0.05

0.10

None Collected

Quillback

0.41

None Collected

None Collected

Starhead Topminnow

0.11

None Collected

None Collected

Suckermouth Minnow

0.81

None Collected

None Collected

We found that species tolerance did not significantly impact the change in relative abundance

from 1950 to 2020 (t(37) = -0.65, P = 0.26). The average change in relative abundance for all

“tolerant” species was -0.42 %, while the average change in “intolerant” species was 0.93 %.

Table 11: List of top 10 species with the greatest change in relative abundance from 1950 in

either 1978 or 2020. The change in relative abundance was calculated using 1950 as a baseline.

Species

1978

2020

Striped Shiner

9.98

33.89

Spotfin Shiner

-0.61

14.31

Rainbow Darter

4.3

5.48

Hornyhead Chub

11.53

1.85

Creek Chub

-5.72

-3.04

Bluntnose Minnow

17.28

-4.3

Sand Shiner

-5.69

-5.28

Northern Hogsucker

-3.58

-5.61

Silverjaw Minnow

-12.51

-12.17

Central Stoneroller

-19.68

-21.38

13

The functional dispersion of 2020 sites 1-3 was similar to both the 1950 and 1978 corresponding

sites. Site 4 showed a decrease in functional dispersion from 1950 to 1978 but remained stable

from 1978 to 2020 (Table 12).

Table 12: Functional dispersion of fish collected in 2020, 1978, and 1950.

Site

2020 Functional

Dispersion

1978 Functional

Dispersion

1950 Functional

Dispersion

1

0.2319

0.2427

0.2056

2

0.2293

0.2783

0.2551

3

0.2470

0.2726

0.2695

4

0.1612

0.1685

0.2657

Stream Habitat Characteristics

The increased depth at site 1 was at least partially attributable to the increased flow during

sampling (Figure 4), however, at the downstream site 4, there were noticeably deeper and more

frequent pools.

Figure 4: Daily mean discharge of the Salt Fork River during 2020 Jordan Creek habitat

sampling time points as measured by a USGS station roughly 16 miles from the Jordan Creek

study area. Study sites are labeled next to their corresponding sampling date.

20

30

40

50

60

Jul 26

2020

Jul 28

2020

Jul 30

2020

Aug 1

2020

Aug 3

2020

Aug 5

2020

Aug 7

2020

Aug 9

2020

D

aily D

ischarge (ft

3

/s)

Discharge at the Salt Fork near St. Joseph, IL

Daily Mean Discharge

1

3

2 & 4

14

Sampling Efforts

This project was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in sampling delays.

As a result, habitat surveys were conducted several weeks before fish sampling which was

pushed back later into the summer. The sampling period occurred while water levels were

declining, so discharge was noticeably lower during the habitat assessments occurring later in the

summer compared to the initial assessments (Figure 4).

Species Composition

Bluntnose Minnow, Spotfin Shiner, and Striped Shiner were by far the most common, making up

61.78% of the total abundance. The relative abundance of the Striped Shiner was over two times

greater than the Spotfin Shiner and Striped Shiner, making up 33.89% of all the fish collected.

Several species were found in low numbers and had a relative abundance of 0.5% or less. These

include the Golden Redhorse, Grass Pickerel, Green Sunfish, Largemouth Bass, Northern

Hogsucker, Orangethroat Darter, Redfin Shiner, Rock Bass, Roseyface Shiner, Sand Shiner,

Silverjaw Minnow, Smallmouth Bass, Warmouth, White Sucker, and Yellow Bullhead. Together

these species make up only 2.28% of the total relative abundance.

Larimore listed 38 species in his 1950 survey but provided numerical data for only 35

species. The following analysis will thus be based only on these 35 species. The most common

species collected in 1950 were the Bluntnose Minnow, Central Stoneroller, and Silverjaw

Minnow. These three fish accounted for 53.57% of the total relative abundance. Unlike the 2020

survey, no single species dominated the total fish population. The species that were the least

prevalent, representing 0.5% or less of the relative abundance, include the Bluegill, Grass

Pickerel, Johnny Darter, Largemouth Bass, Redfin Shiner, Rock Bass, Stonecat, Yellow

Bullhead, Common Shiner, Black Bullhead, Brindled Madtom, Blackside Darter, Starhead

Topminnow, and Creek Chubsucker.

Absent Species

There were 13 species collected in the 1950 survey that were not collected in the 2020 sampling:

Creek Chubsucker, Quillback, Spotted Sucker, Carp, Common Shiner, Suckermouth Minnow,

Flathead Minnow, Black Bullhead, Bridled Madtom, Starhead Topminnow, Blackside Darter,

Logperch, and Warmouth. However, Larimore did not provide numerical data for the Spotted

Sucker, Carp, or Logperch so it is difficult to assess their prevalence in Jordan Creek.

The three species which Larimore collected in noticeable amounts but were not collected

in either 2020 nor 1978 are the Quillback Carpsucker (167 collected), Common Shiner (826

collected), and Suckermouth Minnow (335 collected). The Quillback Carpsucker is currently

found throughout the state of Illinois and has been routinely identified in the nearby Kankakee

River by the Illinois DNR over the past 20 years (Pescitelli, 2017). The fact that Quillbacks were

only found in 1950 can potentially be attributed to their lifestyle. Quillbacks migrate in schools

15

and can occur sporadically in areas where they have previously been prevalent (Larimore, 1996).

Therefore, Larimore could have come across a school of Quillbacks during his 1950 survey and

recorded data that is not reflective of long-term population dynamics

Common Shiners were abundant in 1950 but were not collected in either the 1978 or

2020 surveys. Information provided by the Illinois DNR shows that the range of the Common

Shiner is limited to the top fourth of Illinois and does not extend to Champaign County and

Jordan Creek (IDNR, n.d.). It is unclear what conditions of Jordan Creek in 1950 were favorable

to Common Shiners, but they were collected in an area that is now considered outside of their

habitat range.

The Suckermouth Minnow is another species found in 1950 but at no other collection

time points. According to the Illinois DNR, the Suckermouth Minnow is found throughout the

state of Illinois, except for the northeast one-fourth of the state in which Champaign County

resides (IDNR, n.d.). Jordan Creek is located at the cusp of the current range, this boundary

could have potentially shifted in the past 70 years and led to the absence of Suckermouth

Minnows.

New Species

There were four species collected during the 2020 survey which were not listed in Larimore’s

1950 sampling report. These species are all part of the minnow family and include the Emerald

Shiner, Western Mosquitofish, Blackstripe Topminnow, and Striped Shiner.

Both the Emerald Shiner and Western Mosquitofish are unique to the 2020 survey and

were not collected in either the 1950 or 1978 sampling events. The Emerald Shiner was only

found in sites 2 and 3. The Western Mosquitofish was found in all sites except for site 2, and it

was significantly more abundant in site 4 where 60 of the 83 total individuals were collected.

The Blackstripe Topminnow was not collected in 1950 but it was present in the 1978

survey where it made up 2.63% of the relative abundance. In our 2020 survey, the Blackstripe

Topminnow had a relative abundance of 1.46%, indicating that the population levels have

remained stable.

The most notable species present in the 2020 survey, but absent in the 1950 survey, is the

Striped Shiner. The Striped Shiner was prevalent throughout all sites with 100+ individuals

collected at each site. Of all the species caught, the Striped Shiner was the most numerous

representing 33.89% of the total relative abundance. The number of individuals caught was four

times greater at site 4 compared to sites 1-3. The Striped Shiner can inhabit all streambed

substrates including muck and clay-silt. As site 4 is the only site that has muck and clay-silt as

the dominant substrate, the increased populations could reflect their affinity for those streambed

conditions. While they were not collected in 1950, by 1978 the Striped Shiner had begun to

populate Jordan Creek and represented 9.98% of the relative abundance. Schlosser’s survey

showed that the Striped Shiner was predominantly found in his agricultural site which is

16

consistent with our 2020 collection as most of the Striped Shiners were found at the agricultural

site 4.

Species Decline

Species that suffered a noticeable decline in their populations from 1950 to 2020 include Central

Stoneroller, Silverjaw Minnow, Northern Hogsucker, Sand Shiner, and Bluntnose Minnow.

Central Stonerollers prefer habitats with streambeds composed of gravel and bedrock, a

moderate flow rate, and clear water. They avoid areas with high levels of clay-silt and muck and

therefore are not found in degraded streams with high bank erosion and high stream turbidity

(Post, 1996). The relative abundance of Central Stonerollers dropped from 23.84% (9830

individuals) in 1950 to 3.16% in 1978 (65 individuals) and is now at 1.46% (39 individuals) in

2020. Most of the Central Stonerollers collected in the 2020 survey were found at Site 2. This

site is dominated by bedrock and pebbles which is the preferred habitat of Central Stonerollers

and can potentially explain their higher populations at this site. Looking at the 1978 data, most

individuals were collected at site 4E which correlates to our 2020 site 1, though there are slight

differences in exact site locations. In both the 2020 and 1978 surveys, Central Stonerollers were

found mostly in the upstream reach and rarely in the downstream area which has higher levels of

silt and sand. Because Central Stonerollers are found throughout the entirety of Illinois, it is

likely the stream conditions, not the range, which is influencing the change in population levels.

The Silverjaw Minnow is a benthic feeder found exclusively in shallow streams with a

sandy bottom and no silt content. They have been known to feed with Bluntnose Minnows and

Central Stonerollers to take advantage of the benthic invertebrates uncovered by their feeding

activities (University of Kentucky, n.d.). In 1950, 5159 Silverjaw Minnows were collected, in

1978 none were captured, and in 2020 only 9 individuals were caught across the entire study

area. Larimore collected higher numbers of Silverjaw Minnows in the downstream area which is

associated with agricultural activity and correlates with our 2020 site 4. Site 4 had the highest

percent of sand composition of all the sites, but it was predominantly silt. As the Silverjaw

Minnow is intolerant of silty streambeds, land-use changes associated with increased suspended

sediment and silt deposition may be a driving cause of their noticeable decline. A study on

Silverjaw Minnow populations in a small freshwater stream showed that accidental discharges of

manure and high levels of nutrient runoff entering the water resulted in significant fish kills.

These results indicate that Silverjaw Minnows are highly sensitive to these inputs (Toth, 1982).

Changes in land use and agricultural activities following 1950 may have resulted in increased

nutrient runoff and therefore decreased populations in both 1978 and 2020.

Only three individuals of the Northern Hogsucker were collected in 2020 and 44

individuals were collected in 1978. Comparatively, 2358 Northern Hogsuckers were collected

during the 1950 sampling event and they represent 5.72% of the relative abundance. Northern

Hogsuckers are highly sensitive to stream channelization and siltation. Their populations have

been decreasing in central Illinois due to these processes (IDNR, n.d.). Downstream of the

forested area, Jordan Creek is surrounded by agriculture. Farming activities can result in stream

17

channelization and erosion processes which increases the suspended sediment load and fine silt

content of waterways. As Northern Hogsuckers are sensitive to both these processes, land-use

changes, and agricultural activities may be primary drivers of their disappearance from Jordan

Creek.

Sand Shiners were uniformly found across the 1950 study site and made up 5.69% of the

relative abundance with 2344 individuals collected. Their population dramatically declined, and

no Sand Shiners were found in the entire 1978 sampling event and only 11 were collected during

the 2020 sampling. The Sand Shiner is found throughout Illinois except for the bottom southeast

of the state which does not include Champaign county. Sand Shiners are found in streams with

gravel and pebble substrate (IDNR, n.d.). In the 2020 survey, Sand Shiners were only collected

in site 3 which was dominated by pebble and cobble substrate. Potential changes to the

prevalence of pebbles in the stream substrate composition following the 1950 sampling effort

could contribute to the decline in Sand Shiners.

The Bluntnose Minnow is found throughout the entirety of Illinois (IDNR, n.d.) and is

listed as a species of least concern by the IUCN due to their large population sizes and stable

population trends (Fishes of Boneyard Creek, n.d.). The Bluntnose Minnow was collected in the

1950, 1978, and 2020 sampling efforts, however, their relative abundance has fluctuated. From

1950 to 1978 the relative abundance increased by 17.28% but fell by 21.58% from 1978 to 2020

with an overall decline of 4.3% compared to their relative abundance in 1950. Despite the

decrease in relative abundance in 2020, they represent 12.92% of the total sample with 346

individuals collected throughout the sites. Bluntnose Minnows live in schools and are commonly

found midwater or at the bottom of the water column in clear streams with abundant aquatic

vegetation, sand and gravel substrate, and a consistent flow (IDNR, n.d.). Their preference of

sand and gravel substrate is reflected in our results; the greatest number of individuals were

found at site 3 which is the only site dominated by pebble substrate. Because they prefer the mid

to deep areas of the water column, low water levels are not favorable conditions. The decline in

discharge across sampling points could have caused them to leave Jordan Creek for deeper

waters. The decline in Bluntnose Minnow species in 2020 could be a result of both lower water

levels and limited pebble-dominated sampling sites.

Conclusion/Recommendations

The 2020 assessment of habitat characteristics and fish community composition provides

valuable insight into changes occurring in Jordan Creek. Looking at the historical context when

comparing results of 1950, 1978, and 2020 sampling efforts can provide a greater understanding

of the observed trends. In 1950 there were few regulations for surface water drainage. 1978 is

several years after the Clean Water Act and therefore should reflect the newly imposed

regulations. While 2020 represents shifting environmental standards towards fewer regulations

on discharge into surface waters.

Continued monitoring of Jordan Creek at more frequent time intervals will help

substantiate the 2020 results as it will provide clarification as to whether our data represents

18

continued trends. Because of the short sampling reaches, the 2020 data has the potential of

misrepresenting total species abundance. Future sampling can help identify potential species

misrepresentation. To account for differing microhabitats between the reaches, a more thorough

assessment of the habitat types present in each reach can help support our assertations that the

presence, or absence, of microhabitats, is the driving factor of variations in species richness. In

conjunction with electrofishing and fish identification, monitoring changes in the surrounding

land-use can provide additional insight into potential changes in the fish community of Jordan

Creek.

Fish species caught in 1950 and 2020 by family

Sucker Family

White sucker

Hog sucker

Golden redhorse

Creek chubsucker*

Quillback*

Spotted Sucker*

Minnow Family

Creek chub

Hornyhead chub

Rosyface shiner

Spotfin shiner

Sand shiner

Silverjaw minnow

Bluntnose minnow

Stoneroller

Carp*

Common shiner*

Suckermouth minnow*

Flathead minnow*

Blackstripe topminnow**

Striped shiner**

Emerald shiner**

Western mosquitofish**

Catfish Family

Yellow bullhead

Stonecat

19

Black bullhead*

Bridled madtom*

Killfish Family

Starhead topminnow*

Perch Family

Johnny darter

Rainbow darter

Fantail

Greenside darter

Orangethroat darter

Blackside darter*

Logperch*

Sunfish Family

Smallmouth black bass

Largemouth black bass

Green sunfish

Bluegill

Orangespotted sunfish

Longear sunfish

Rock bass

Warmouth*

*: were not caught in the 2020 sampling

**: were not caught in the 1950 sampling

20

References

Coulihan, T., Waite, I., Casper, A., Ward, D., Sauer, J., Irwin, E., et al. (2018). Can data from

disparate long-term fish monitoring programs be used to increase our understanding of

regional and continental trends in large river assemblages? PLoS ONE, 13(1).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191472

Fausch, K., Lyons, J., Karr, J., & Angermeier, P. (1990). Fish communities as indicators of

environmental degradation. American Fisheries Society Symposium 8, 123-144.

Schlosser, I. (1982). Fish community structure and function along two habitat gradients in a

headwater stream. Ecological Monographs, 52(4), 395-414.

Fishes of Boneyard Creek. (n.d.) Bluntnose minnow (pimephales notatus).

http://fishesofboneyardcreek.weebly.com/bluntnose-minnow.html

Herman, M., & Nejadhashemi, A. (2015). A review of macroinvertebrate and fish-based stream

health indices. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology, 15(2), 53-67.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2015.04.001

Hostert, L. (2018). Kaskaskia Basin Wadeable Stream Surveys. Illinois Natural History Survey.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (n.d.) Bluntnose minnow.

https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/education/Pages/WAFBluntnoseMinnow.aspx

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (n.d.). Common shiner.

https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/education/Pages/WAFCommonShiner.aspx

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (n.d.). Northern hogsucker.

https://www.ifishillinois.org/Blog/NorthernHogsucker.html

21

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (n.d.). Sand shiner.

https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/education/Pages/WAFSandShiner.aspx

Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). (n.d.). Suckermouth minnow.

https://www2.illinois.gov/dnr/education/Pages/WAFSuckermouthMinnow.aspx

Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS). (2018). Field Sampling of Macroinvertebrates-

Multihabitat Approach.

Larimore, R., & Bayley, P. (1996). The fishes of Champaign County, Illinois, during a century of

alterations of a prairie ecosystem. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin, 35(2).

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4834404.pdf

Larimore, W., Pickering, Q., Durham, L. (1952). An inventory of fishes of Jordan Creek. Natural

History Survey Division.

Pescitelli, S., & Widloe, T. (2017). Evaluation of stream quality and sport fisheries in the

Kankakee River basin. Illinois Department of Natural Resources

https://www.ifishillinois.org/ssr/2015_Kankakee_River_Basin-Report_FINAL.pdf.pdf

Post, Susan. (1996). Species Spotlight: The Common Stoneroller. Illinois Natural History

Survey. https://www.inhs.illinois.edu/resources/inhsreports/nov-

dec95/stone/#:~:text=The%20common%20stoneroller%2C%20Campostoma%20anomal

um,of%20sand%20and%20gravel%20bottoms.

Toth, L., Karr, J., Dudley, D., & Gorman, O. (1982). Natural and man-induced variability in a

silverjaw minnow (Ericymba buccata) population. The American Midland Naturalist.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2425379

University of Kentucky. (n.d.) https://oepos.ca.uky.edu/content/silverjaw-minnow

Ward-Campbell, B., Cottenie, K., Mandrak, N., & McLaughlin, R. Fish assemblages in

agricultural drains are resilient to habitat change caused by drain maintenance. Canadian

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 74(10). https://doil.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-

0361